Save poor Denmark

Denmark is a wealthy nation of 5.5 million people that always scores near the top of surveys of the world’s happiest nations. To Johansen, the problem is clear: “We’re just too well-off in Europe.”…Johansen’s work takes him all over the world, he said, and he has noticed much stronger religious faith in poorer societies…”We’re basically rich and spoiled.”

So…religious ‘faith’ correlates with poverty and the absence of it correlates with prosperity and happiness – and that’s a problem for the people who are prosperous and happy? I wonder if it occurs to Johansen that one could interpret the correlation in another way – that poor people need the consolations of ‘faith’ more than prosperous and happy people do, and that the absence of ‘faith’ is not in fact a problem at all.

Speaking of missionaries, I wonder how many folk new that (Australian) Ken Hamm’s load of fundie loons – Answers in Genesis – have quite regular missions to the UK (amongst other places). Last time I was in their HQ, Glasgow was mentioned as one place they’d been targeting…

Finally got round to reading this story and jesus fucking christ, the missionaries are from S’pore! The aspirational middle classes here got the charismatic/evangelical christianity bug in a big way over the last two decades and lots of traditional christians left their anglican and catholic churches for the new mega churches with their huge auditoriums, rockin’ music bands and pastors with celebrity profiles (and the unabashed luxury lifestyle that went with it). None of that old-style austere, do-good christianity seems attractive to people nowadays. By contrast, the people turning or returning to buddhism often opt for a personalised, traditional version that is strong on charity and quite mellow.

Anyhow, I am just glad that some of these crazy jokers have left the country- our gain, Denmark’s loss!

Sorry G. Tingey, the West military superiority since the early days of the Greek civilization is a historical fact. I agree that this superiority was at least as much due to tactics and, how can I say, a VERY different state of mind when it came to warfare as actual modern weapons but the results are here for all to see: since the battle of Poitier the west has never been really been under threat of invasion from other parts of the world. (The only exception I can think of would be Japan in the 40s, but it’s hugely debatable).

Basicaly we have always been very good at killing people and winning wars. You yourself listed the Battle of Salamis.

That’s what permitted us to concentrate on warfare among ourselves (much more conductive to progress) in our little fortress of a continent and on bringing the shiploads of cheap resources and precious metals (not to mention cheap labour in the new world) without which the Industrial Revolution would not have happened.

OB – glad you finally got to this story, which I thought would surely amuse you. But the best part to me is the American Ambassador, who seems to think he is an ambassador from Christiania, a kingdom of believers.

Simple principle, used for millenia, we did it too, works like a charm if you can get the balance right-

Annexe foreign country, strip valuable raw materials/assets/population/whatever yer after from said country for far below anything resembling a market price, use this to increase your advantage over local rivals.

I know, over-simplification, but it stands up pretty well as a basic model.

Perhaps the key difference between the European colonies was one of degree of brutality used in ensuring the natives’ co-operation…Belgian Congo, anyone? We British seemed to be awfully good at persuading the poor folks that we were, in fact, uplifting and improving them, for which they should be endlessly grateful. Which we did, of course, but only to the extent that they could keep the system going for us. Until it all finally went tits up when they twigged the con… :-)

Anyway, Monsieur Tingey might be interested that there’s a very good case for the birth of modern, organised (factory-style) Western capitalist endeavour being in the *cough* munition/armaments works *cough* of Venice…long before 1715!

And whereas warfare may play havoc with consumer-demand-orientated DOMESTIC industry, it’s pretty good for technological/scientific/military industrial development – much of which then carries over into the domestic sphere (eg. Radar, Jet engines, etc,etc)

“fashionable nonsense”? er…no.

Finally, if G.T.’s going to come over all condescending, they could at least try to get the apostrophe in the right place, huh?

[They wrote: fashionable lefts’ “explanations” ]

Unless, of course, there are a plethora of “lefts”, (all fashionable, naturally), of which I was unforgivably unaware, although simultaneously being somehow in their thrall…?

Yeah, I once worked in Tyseley Railway Museum Birmingham. As part of the job I went with other colleagues to various schools around spaghetti junction. We showed the primary school children mini-films concerning locomotives. They did not even know the meaning of coal. We had to show them samples.

I did not subsequently enjoy telling them about the Navvies. Whose mammoth input helped build the British railway structure? The Irish navvies were not depicted too satisfactorily by the texts from which we were given. They were on a par with Neanderthals. I did not then have the wherewithal to articulate my angst. But, nevertheless

in saying this I always somehow cleverly manage to sabotage discussions by some cunning diversion or other whenever possible.

The British railway system expanded exponentially during the nineteenth century. Its construction required an entire new workforce: in 1845 there were 200,000 men building 3,000 miles of new railway line. The navvies (shortened from ‘navigators’, the canal-builders of the eighteenth century) building the railways came from across the British Isles. One third were Irish, seeking escape from famine…[M]any Irish navvies sent their earnings home while the Scottish and English lavished their wages on alcohol.

The Railway Navvy: ‘That Despicable Race of Men’, (1984).

The industrial South does however acknowledge the Irish Navvies supremacy in the East and West Lowlands of Scotland. Route miles in Scotland would nevertheless be far fewer than in England.

No, Richard, of course it isn’t as simple as that, but if you’re going to ignore the effects of centuries of colonial history, and simply brush them away with an “apples and oranges” comparison with Ireland, then more fool you.

(For an excellent mini-analysis on the Irish “economic miracle”, and the key role of US multinationals, see here:

Yeh, corruption seems to be rife in a lot of these places – but then, how about cash for peerages, and BAE & the Saudis, f’rinstance? We’re not exactly “white as snow”, now are we? And if you’ve spent decades learning the art of theft and oppression from your colonial masters (weren’t the Portuguese sooo nice out east?), it’s always going to be a hard task to remove it once it’s become endemic. It’s always useful to look at the administrative structures that were left behind (or lack of them).

Again, I’m not excusing dictators like Mugabe – but how did he come to have the opportunity? What was our role, if any, in making him possible (cf. USA & Noriega)?

Also, in which regions/countries did we entertain ourselves by encouraging & funding/profiting from arms sales during a series of “low-intensity conflicts” as part of the Cold War?

Returning to my (fairly boring) previous theme about the economics of colonial acquisition, Ireland is actually a great early example, with records of English terror that the attempted takeover by Edward Bruce (1315-1318) would cut off the grain supplies that were vital to the English economy. And if Mr. Tingey (or anyone else, would like some stats, etc, on the importance of largely slave-based colonial imports/trade to the GB economy, then I heartily recommend “The British in the Americas, 1480-1815” by A. McFarlane. I’d quote a few passages about the West Indies, etc, but I can’t, ‘cos the baby is sleeping at this moment, with his cot right beside the relevant bookcase. Which is probably a good thing, because it’s a pretty dull book, unfortunately.

Ah well. G.T. will probably abuse me roundly after all that, but who cares? :-)

Hopefully I’ve killed this thread by the sheer dullness of this post alone!

So the answer to my question is yes Andy,sorry I dont buy this white guilt stuff! the empire was long ago enough for these people to sink or swim on their own merit,you dont help them by giving them a built in excuse for failing.

Look at Ghana – thriving and prosperous when the Brits left. Kwame Nkrumah & his mates then stole everything …

Or Nigeria, which has got to the point where even the OIL COMPANIES are thinking of abandining it, because none oif the money they’e spent over the years has gone to the Nigerian people – their “government” has stolen the lot.

etc ad nauseam …

Ah, the slave trade – the Brits got into an existing trading system, and expanded it, as did the other European countries that were in a position to do so. But, Mr. Gilmour, who got out of it first? And who urged others to get out of it? And who kept the slave trade going for longest – the answer to the last is the E-coast-of Africa trading Arabs, of course.

I never claimed that “we” were pure, or “holy” just that we were probably (a lot) less nasty than the others.

Erm – I’ve just noticed – one of my intermediate posts on this thread has vanished – where did it go to?

Thanks for making this a rational debate, as opposed to Richard, who offers, er..nothing. But then, given the nature of most of his posts, I ain’t too surprised.

Ok, this is my last post on this one, but I’ll try to address as much as possible:

Slavery – yes, we were first out, but we then acquired further colonies – partly for good by helping to eradicate slave trade, but also for economic advantage/profit/ripping-off the locals. Also, you can’t ignore the advantage that had ALREADY been gained, and the colonial trade which had massively boosted the Industrial Revolution.

If you look, you’ll find I never said that, so feel free to retract it. :-)

Colonial misrule & economic theft of resources – and again, you might have noticed I gave examples of nations (Belgium, Portugal, but let’s not forget the French & Germans) who were significantly more oppressive/horrendous than we were – cannot be denied as factors in the current situation. Niall Ferguson’s book was well-written, but didn’t tell the whole story, now did it?

Do you seriously want to discuss the role of western oil companies in Africa? Shell never helped to prop up the Abacha regime, now did they? Only forced to clean up their act after Ken Saro-wiwa was murdered. BP was forced to disclose a $111m “signature bonus” paid to the government of Angola in 2001. Elf Aquitaine in the Gabon… and Bush ‘n’ Blair have refused to back legislation to make publication of payments to govts mandatory. None of that supports your case very well.

Finally, since you didn’t answer my point about the “colonialism-by-stealth” and de-stabilisation tactics that were in operation during the cold war, nor the one about western interests assisting dictators, here are a few bits and pieces:

Kissinger’s 1969 National Security Memorandum 39 on southern africa “The whites are here to stay and the only way that constructive change can come about is through them.” This lead, amongst other fun, to the US supporting UNITA in Angola.

Mobuto Sese Seko, dictator of Zaire, and good friend of America until 1990…again, aimed mostly against Angola.